The result was delete. Liz Read! Talk! 22:45, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
Could not find anything resembling WP:SIGCOV. Seems to fail WP:GNG. Robby.is.on ( talk) 23:00, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
The result was redirect to History of Bellingham, Washington. If this is the correct Redirect target article, feel free to change it. There were several mentioned in this discussion. Liz Read! Talk! 22:47, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
Merge with History of Bellingham, Washington. Article is about a single settlement that existed for roughly ten years after the merger of Whatcom and Sehome, and prior to its merger into Bellingham. Supported by one source, which itself doesn't support most of the text. PersusjCP ( talk) 22:57, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
The result was Draftify. I'm closing this discussion as Draftify. As far as I can tell, this just means that it needs to be submitted for an AFC review before returning to main space. I just hope it gets improved. Feel free to have a rename discussion on the draft talk page. Liz Read! Talk! 22:58, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
Does not meet
WP:NPOV; relies heavily on direct quotes. '''[[
User:CanonNi]]'''
(
talk|
contribs) 13:34, 9 April 2024 (UTC)
'''[[
User:CanonNi]]'''
(
talk|
contribs) 13:34, 9 April 2024 (UTC):I have improved the references now.
Bengali editor (
talk) 13:56, 9 April 2024 (UTC) Sock, see
Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Lazy-restless
::See the recent sourcing, it is better sourced now.
Bengali editor (
talk) 14:41, 9 April 2024 (UTC)
'''[[
User:CanonNi]]'''
(
talk|
contribs) 14:42, 9 April 2024 (UTC)::::No, they mostly contains secondary sources.
Bengali editor (
talk) 14:52, 9 April 2024 (UTC)
Umar bin Khattab said, Learn Arabic language. That is part of your deen. — Ibn Taymiyyah said, Arabic language is the symbol of Islam and its people (Muslims). — He further said, Allah revealed the Qur'an in Arabic andd instructed the beloved Prophet (PBUH) to preach the Qur'an-Sunnah in Arabic. The first followers of the religion were Arabic speaking. Therefore, there is no substitute for mastering this language for deep knowledge of religion. Practicing Arabic is part of religion and a symbol of respect for religion.How is this not a direct quotation?
'''[[
User:CanonNi]]'''
(
talk|
contribs) 14:56, 9 April 2024 (UTC)::::For quotations, secondary sources have been used from books and newspapers.
Bengali editor (
talk) 14:59, 9 April 2024 (UTC)
::Check out last changes and the section opinion of non-muslim scholars, I have added a lot of entries from established reliable sources.
Bengali editor (
talk) 23:52, 9 April 2024 (UTC)
'''[[
User:CanonNi]]'''
(
talk|
contribs) 23:54, 9 April 2024 (UTC)
'''[[
User:CanonNi]]'''
(
talk|
contribs) 01:38, 10 April 2024 (UTC)
'''[[
User:CanonNi]]'''
(
talk|
contribs) 01:48, 10 April 2024 (UTC)'''[[
User:CanonNi]]'''
(
talk|
contribs) 02:49, 10 April 2024 (UTC)
:::::::::Nope. There are many non muslim scholars of Islam, means they are scholars of Islam but doesn't believe in it.
List of non-Muslim authors on Islam,
Category:Non-Islamic Islam studies literature,
Category:Christian scholars of Islam,
Category:Jewish scholars of Islam,
Category:Muslim scholars of Islam,
Category:Non-Muslim scholars of Islam and
Category:Scholars of Islam by religion.
Bengali editor (
talk) 03:46, 10 April 2024 (UTC)
*Keep Classical Quranic Arabic in Quran and Hadith literature is considered the most divine miraculous language in Islam as muslim scholars say the linguistic divine secret knowledges of original Arabic Quran can never be completely transformed into translation in any other form of languages. Moreover, using original arabic dictations in prayers (
salat) and prophetic rituals such as
Hajj is obligatory also. The traditions of Muhammad including the quotes and deeds of Muhammad are also preserved much carefully in original Arabic (
Ilm al-Rijal) without any minimal distortion.
Bengali editor (
talk) 17:41, 13 April 2024 (UTC) Sock, see
Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Lazy-restless.
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Please do not move this article until after the AFD is closed. If the decision is that the article will be Kept, then a article page move can be considered.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk! 22:43, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz Read! Talk! 00:18, 19 April 2024 (UTC)
The article states that Gary Smith is a congressional candidate. It also mentions his conviction for stalking. Congressional candidates are neither notable or not notable under WP:POLITICIAN. However, nothing is so distinct about his candidacy that he himself warrants an article. It is otherwise run of the mill coverage of candidacies that do not rise to the level of candidates like Christine O'Donnell, Lar Daly or Pro-Life (born Marvin Thomas Richardson). The other is his conviction. Notability as it relates to crime and criminals states that "a person who is known only in connection with a criminal event or trial should not normally be the subject of a separate Wikipedia article if there is an existing article that could incorporate the available encyclopedic material relating to that person." The information on his conviction can be merged into the article about the 2012 election. Mpen320 ( talk) 19:58, 9 April 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk! 22:31, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
The result was delete. ✗ plicit 03:45, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
Fails WP:NBLP and WP:GNG. The notability of this individual is not established independently of his company, the Hollywood Critics Association. All the coverage he has received is in context of a series of related controversies involving his company. In fact, about 70% of the content on this page is copied from the company's Wikipedia page. Notability is not inherited, please see WP:INVALIDBIO, WP:BIO1E and WP:PSEUDO. Beyond these controversies, there is very little biographical information and that is cited to low-quality sources such as Muck Rack, alumni sites, and the 'about' page of a primary source. Teemu.cod ( talk) 22:35, 9 April 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Already PROD'd for deletion, supposedly by the article subject, so not eligible for Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk! 22:23, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
The result was no consensus. This is not a Keep closure or a Delete closure. Do to a lack of participation, I see no consensus here. If the nominator wants to hold a follow-up AFD, please wait an appropriate period of time. Coming back too soon to AFD will likely result in a similar closure to this one. If this AFD can only garner a handful of participants, a new AFD happening too soon will likely have even fewer participants. Liz Read! Talk! 23:33, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
He's a TV host but he fails to meet relevant WP:JOURNALIST as well WP:GNG — Saqib ( talk | contribs) 20:53, 29 March 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk! 23:11, 5 April 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Already PROD'd, not eligible for Soft Deletion. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk! 22:49, 9 April 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist. Can we get some more participation here?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk! 22:14, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
I'm just curious why IP addresses from outside Pakistan are involved in voting deletions here. --— Saqib ( talk | contribs) 08:26, 20 April 2024 (UTC)
The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz Read! Talk! 23:05, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
I am unable to find enough coverage of the subject, a South African rugby union player, to meet WP:GNG or WP:SPORTCRIT. JTtheOG ( talk) 21:22, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz Read! Talk! 23:05, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
I am unable to find enough coverage of the subject, a South African rugby union player, to meet WP:GNG or WP:SPORTCRIT. JTtheOG ( talk) 21:19, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
The result was keep. Liz Read! Talk! 23:06, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
Reviewed during NPP. A combination of wp:Not for a stats-only article (and inherently subject) combined with no evidence of wp:notability under GNG or SNG. There have been in-depth discussions on articles of this type which led to deletion. North8000 ( talk) 20:41, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz Read! Talk! 23:07, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
There seems to be nothing that proves this is notable. The internet verifies it exists, but that's about all. Drmies ( talk) 20:31, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
The result was speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn. ( non-admin closure) JTtheOG ( talk) 20:58, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
I am unable to find sufficient in-depth coverage of the subject, a South African rugby league player, to meet WP:GNG or WP:SPORTCRIT, or much coverage at all past trivial mentions. JTtheOG ( talk) 19:49, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
I am also nominating the following related pages because they are all South African rugby league players who played at the same qualifying tournament and were created by the same user under now-deprecated WP:SNGs, with little to no chance of ever receiving WP:SIGCOV:
The result was delete. Liz Read! Talk! 23:08, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
No notability in the article beyond a dubious 'guitar picking' statement and no significant coverage to be found on the web. InDimensional ( talk) 19:09, 9 April 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Article has been through PROD. Ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Shadow311 (
talk) 19:13, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
The result was delete. Liz Read! Talk! 23:09, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
Nothing appears to have changed since the last AfD a month ago. WP:NOTGUIDE applies. signed, Rosguill talk 18:43, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
Not sure on this - Is this up for deletion because the article is in bad shape, or that it shouldn't be here regardless? We have List of Wimbledon broadcasters and List of Australian Open broadcasters articles that appear to be sourced much better and are laid out in a satisfactory style. The flags for countries would certainly have to go as against MOS. If this was done in a Wimbledon like style would there be objections? Fyunck(click) ( talk) 09:07, 17 April 2024 (UTC)
Delete, as per my previous nomination. This was soft deleted and should remain deleted. No merit for keeping this. Again, WP:NOTTVGUIDE applies here. The subjects are not described as a group, failing WP:LISTN. Also, all but one are unsourced - has anything improved since then? No. SpacedFarmer ( talk) 17:56, 17 April 2024 (UTC)
The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz Read! Talk! 00:20, 19 April 2024 (UTC)
A missionary in Africa but no evidence of any notability. Many of the sources are family tree/ genealogy sources which attest to facts but not notabiity. He gets a mention in source 4 as a young man with an eye to an attractive daughter of a missionary family but nothing here speaks of notability and the source is highly affiliated. Fails WP:GNG Velella Velella Talk 18:42, 9 April 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Hey man im josh (
talk) 18:43, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Cavarrone 18:12, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
Promotional/UPE. Engineer did engineering things. UtherSRG (talk) 18:34, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
The person has been an elected member of a highly selective and prestigious scholarly society or association (e.g., a National Academy of Sciences or the Royal Society) or a fellow of a major scholarly society which reserves fellow status as a highly selective honor (e.g., Fellow of the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers or Honorary Fellow of the Institute of Physics).StarryGrandma ( talk) 05:26, 18 April 2024 (UTC)
The result was merge to Cup. Liz Read! Talk! 23:10, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
Contested PROD. No refs on the page for many years and appears to be a WP:DICDEF with little way to expand or cite properly. There are related ideas such as Beaker (laboratory equipment) and Bell Beaker culture but I'm not seeing the RS for this term. JMWt ( talk) 18:05, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz Read! Talk! 23:11, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
Micro-denomination of six churches. All sources in article are primary sources direct to the subject's own webpage. WP:BEFORE search is tricky because of the common name (similarly named churches in Cuba, Africa, etc.) but turns up nothing to validate notability under WP:NORG Dclemens1971 ( talk) 17:50, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
The result was delete. Liz Read! Talk! 23:11, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
Nominating following contested PROD. Micro-denomination of (perhaps) six congregations; PROD contestor said poor sourcing is not a reason to delete, but no existing sources are valid for establishing notability, and WP:BEFORE searches provide no additional evidence of notability under WP:NORG.
Review of existing sources:
I cannot identify any other independent, secondary, reliable sources that verify the notability of this denomination. Dclemens1971 ( talk) 17:26, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
The result was keep without prejudice against early renomination, if source analysis warrants it. Owen× ☎ 13:45, 24 April 2024 (UTC)
Doesn't meet GNG or WP:NMMA, as refs are either his personal page or sports results Nswix ( talk) 14:55, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Shadow311 (
talk) 15:59, 9 April 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Shadow311 (
talk) 17:01, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
References
The result was keep. with expansion of article. Liz Read! Talk! 00:24, 19 April 2024 (UTC)
Completely unsoured article that doesn't meet the WP:GNG. Let'srun ( talk) 16:31, 9 April 2024 (UTC)
Often, understanding is best achieved by presenting the topic on a dedicated standalone page, but it is not required that we do so; at times it is better to cover a notable topic as part of a larger page about a broader topic, with more context (and doing so in no way disparages the importance of the topic). Editorial judgment goes into each decision about whether or not to create a separate page, but the decision should always be based upon specific considerations about how to make the topic understandable.
Notability requires only the existence of suitable independent, reliable sources, not their immediate presence or citation in an article. Editors evaluating notability should consider ... [the] existence of notability-indicating sources that are not currently named in the article.NOPAGE is about whether it is best to cover a subject at another topic because sufficient content about the subject for a standalone cannot be added; it is not meant to get rid of articles solely because they are short. Although, if an expansion is all it takes for you to change your !vote, I can almost certainly do that. Is that what you'd like me to do? BeanieFan11 ( talk) 20:18, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
because sufficient content about the subject for a standalone cannot be added: I think it applies even when such content can be added. Nor do I have any issue with WP:NEXIST: topics are notable; articles aren't. The sources you've brought forward suggest that the notability hurdle is likely to be met, and a redirect isn't meant to preclude the article's creation (cf. Category:Redirects with possibilities). While I haven't looked at the sources, my !vote isn't about notability; rather, it's about how Wikipedia should organise its current encyclopedic coverage of the topic. Indeed, as WP:NOPAGE says:
at times it is better to cover a notable topic as part of a larger page about a broader topic(my emphasis).
if an expansion is all it takes for you to change your !vote, I can almost certainly do that→ Yep, this is a fairly accurate summary of my position: redirect until it's sourced enough to show it meets GNG and goes beyond the ABL article. So, please, BeanieFan11, go for it, but only if this is genuinely interesting to you and how you wish to spend your wikiediting time before this AfD closes. As far as I'm concerned, there's no deadline, which is why this can close as Redirect and the article can be recreated from the page history whenever an editor is sufficiently interested to complete this task. IgnatiusofLondon (he/him • ☎️) 20:44, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
I don't think it is sane to believe that, if this is redirected, anyone will ever turn this into something. There just isn't the interest.→ Yes, I agree. But that also means you shouldn't feel burdened as
the only hope this article has for existence. Nobody will miss this article if it is redirected: crucially, none of its content will be lost, because the ABL article already contains it; and the page history is always there anyway. You shouldn't feel any more obligated to expand it as a standalone article than as a redirect. IgnatiusofLondon (he/him • ☎️) 21:31, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
Nobody will miss this article– Actually, 318 people a year will miss it. I also am unaware of anyone outside of Wikipedia editors themselves who know how to use the page history function in that manner. I should feel much more obligated to expand it now as otherwise, without my intervention, there is no hope of the full story ever being developed here, because no one ever will if its a redirect, as you have agreed yourself. But I'm in the process of expanding it anyways so... BeanieFan11 ( talk) 21:37, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Shadow311 (
talk) 16:52, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
consider merge or redirect to American Basketball League (1925–1955) as preferred WP:ATD. Not quite a trouting for Let'srun, but I think that was a wise recommendation not to bring the article to AfD. IgnatiusofLondon (he/him • ☎️) 15:22, 17 April 2024 (UTC)
The result was delete. Liz Read! Talk! 01:41, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
Such a wide concept, not sure its point is clear in this unreferenced article. Boleyn ( talk) 16:23, 9 April 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Shadow311 (
talk) 16:51, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
The result was delete. Owen× ☎ 07:51, 24 April 2024 (UTC)
No useful secondary sources. Very little content. Per WP:PRIMARY: "Do not base an entire article on primary sources, and be cautious about basing large passages on them." Amounts to a Pseudo-biography: "An article under the title of a person's name should substantially be a full and balanced biography of that person's public life" AusLondonder ( talk) 16:50, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
It has at no stage been considered to confer notability. That's simply not true. This was discussed recently at Wikipedia talk:Notability (people).It has been discussed several times on talkpages and a consensus has never been attained one way or the other.
Please stop repeatedly misrepresenting what ANYBIO says.I'm not. I'm restating general consensus at AfD, as you very well know. Please "stop repeatedly misrepresenting" what I say.
Assuming he was awarded a CVO, it must have been between 2004 and 2020, which is when the source that cites the CVO, was last updated.According to Who's Who it was conferred in 2008, as I said above. As I have also said above, I have been unable to find it in the London Gazette, which is surprising if it was conferred. You will notice (if you botherered to check) that I have not expressed a "keep" opinion on that basis. -- Necrothesp ( talk) 12:56, 22 April 2024 (UTC)
Those AfDs often involve very, very low participation, with the same collection of editors arguing ANYBIO supersedes sourcing requirements.But higher participation than in those other discussions, frankly. And not the same editors every time at all. I could equally say it's the same editors every time arguing against keeping them! -- Necrothesp ( talk) 12:30, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
The result was delete. Hey man im josh ( talk) 16:46, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
Virtually no actual content and been like this for 12 years. No credible claim to notability - the chairman of a regional branch of a business unit of a larger company. No secondary sources. AusLondonder ( talk) 16:07, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Desertarun ( talk) 18:56, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
Sources are largely routine transactional coverage, not in-depth and independent. No evidence of notability. Previously deleted and salted at PROS * Pppery * it has begun... 16:07, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
There has been considerable discussion over time whether publicly traded corporations, or at least publicly traded corporations listed on major stock exchanges such as the NYSE and other comparable international stock exchanges, are inherently notable. Consensus has been that notability is not automatic in this (or any other) case. However, sufficient independent sources almost always exist for such companies, so that notability can be established using the primary criterion discussed above. Examples of such sources include independent press coverage and analyst reports.
Analyst reports
https://www.marketbeat.com/stocks/NYSE/PRO/price-target/
Internet Archive contains a list of analyst reports available under a paywall:
Date | Brokerage | Analyst Name | Action | Rating | Price Target | Upside/Downside on Report Date | Details |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
3/4/2024 | Needham & Company LLC | Reiterated Rating | Buy ➝ Buy | $40.00 | +11.23% | View Report Details | |
1/12/2024 | KeyCorp | Upgrade | Sector Weight ➝ Overweight | $43.00 | +24.46% | View Report Details | |
12/4/2023 | Robert W. Baird | Boost Target | Outperform ➝ Outperform | $40.00 ➝ $47.00 | +20.20% | View Report Details | |
5/24/2023 | Craig Hallum | Boost Target | $32.00 ➝ $37.00 | +32.47% | View Report Details | ||
5/3/2023 | Stifel Nicolaus | Lower Target | $36.00 ➝ $34.00 | +28.54% | View Report Details | ||
4/19/2023 | Oppenheimer | Initiated Coverage | Outperform | $37.00 | +36.94% | View Report Details | |
3/4/2022 | Morgan Stanley | Lower Target | Equal Weight | $35.00 ➝ $33.00 | +5.74% | View Report Details | |
12/14/2021 | JPMorgan Chase & Co. | Upgrade | Underweight ➝ Neutral | $37.00 | +10.02% | View Report Details | |
12/17/2020 | Northland Securities | Boost Target | Outperform | $56.00 ➝ $61.00 | +25.49% | View Report Details | |
10/30/2020 | Royal Bank of Canada | Downgrade | Outperform ➝ Sector Perform | $33.00 | +5.06% | View Report Details | |
2/12/2020 | Bank of America | John King | Reiterated Rating | Buy | $80.00 | +53.73% | View Report Details |
7/26/2019 | Nomura Securities | Boost Target | Buy | $77.00 ➝ $79.00 | +7.98% | View Report Details | |
5/23/2019 | DA Davidson | Boost Target | Neutral | $50.00 | -6.94% | View Report Details | |
5/10/2019 | JMP Securities | Reiterated Rating | Mkt Perform ➝ Market Perform | View Report Details | |||
6/29/2017 | Pacific Crest | Boost Target | Overweight | $30.00 ➝ $35.00 | +29.06% | View Report Details | |
5/3/2017 | Deutsche Bank Aktiengesellschaft | Boost Target | Buy | $35.00 | +37.42% | View Report Details | |
2/13/2017 | William Blair | Reiterated Rating | Outperform | View Report Details | |||
8/25/2015 | TD Securities | Lower Target | Speculative Buy | C$0.35 ➝ C$0.30 | View Report Details | ||
4/8/2015 | Dundee Securities | Initiated Coverage | Buy | View Report Details | |||
2/28/2014 | Jefferies Financial Group | Downgrade | Buy ➝ Hold | $47.00 ➝ $37.00 | -9.89% | View Report Details |
The result was redirect to Rust shooting incident. (non-admin closure) The Herald (Benison) ( talk) 18:53, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
Textbook WP:BLP1E; subject does not have any notability beyond the Rust shooting incident, which is where this target was originally redirecting to. OhNoitsJamie Talk 16:02, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
The result was delete. Hey man im josh ( talk) 17:00, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
Small defunct school. Zero secondary sources. Fails WP:GNG. AusLondonder ( talk) 15:39, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
The result was delete. Hey man im josh ( talk) 16:54, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
A wholly unsourced, out of date list of mostly non-notable trustees. Fails WP:NLIST and WP:NOTDIRECTORY. AusLondonder ( talk) 15:26, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
The result was delete. Liz Read! Talk! 01:48, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
another influencer with no substantial coverage from any reliable source FuzzyMagma ( talk) 14:43, 9 April 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Already been through PROD. Not eligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Shadow311 (
talk) 14:53, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
The result was keep. Editors can pursue a merge on talk if they wish. (non-admin closure) Desertarun ( talk) 18:52, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
The incident is not notable enough for inclusion in Wikipedia. Per WP:AIRCRASH, in general, military aircraft incidents are not notable. The accident didn't result in a significant change in the operation of the aircraft or the operation of the Russian Air Force. Thus, the incident failed WP:GNG. Thank you. ✠ SunDawn ✠ (contact) 13:48, 25 March 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
The Herald (Benison) (
talk) 21:58, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Analysis of available reference material would be very helpful.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Seraphimblade
Talk to me 02:36, 9 April 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Shadow311 (
talk) 14:47, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
The result was no consensus. It looks like much of the objection to the existence of the page has to do with its name. A better title can be discussed on the article's Talk page. Owen× ☎ 13:30, 24 April 2024 (UTC)
Reviewed during NPP. This article is about a triple murder rather than about the person who did them. Doesn't meet wp:notability requirements and guidance for events. Nor guidance provided by wp:Not news. North8000 ( talk) 20:01, 25 March 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk! 23:14, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I'd like to hear some more opinions, especially on the quality of sources which can determine notability.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk! 22:51, 8 April 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Shadow311 (
talk) 14:44, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
The result was keep. Editors can pursue a merge on the talk page if they wish. (non-admin closure) Desertarun ( talk) 18:49, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
No refs on the page for many years. Nothing much found to show that the story has notability against the inclusion criteria. As ATD we could redirect to William Hope Hodgson but I'm not convinced this is necessary JMWt ( talk) 09:40, 9 April 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: While there is agreement that this should not be deleted, it is still unclear if the content should remain as a stand-alone article or merged/redirected to
List of stories by William Hope Hodgson.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
✗
plicit 11:31, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Cavarrone 18:09, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
Does not fulfill the requirements for WP:Notability, not enough indepedent sigcov could be found either in the article or through own search. WP:NACADEMICS is not met either. FortunateSons ( talk) 10:14, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
The result was delete. RL0919 ( talk) 09:56, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
The only claim to notability is being an unelected candidate in a previous Australian federal election. Fails WP:NPOLITICIAN and WP:GNG. GMH Melbourne ( talk) 08:25, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
The result was delete. Liz Read! Talk! 01:52, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
WP:NOTTVGUIDE applies here. The subjects are not described as a group, failing WP:LISTN. Also, sources are primary sources, nothing but news announcements and none of those assert notability. Those arguing for a keep claiming how useful it is, shall be advised to refer to WP:USEFUL. SpacedFarmer ( talk) 09:03, 9 April 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Not eligible for Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk! 08:21, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
The result was delete. Liz Read! Talk! 01:53, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
WP:NOTTVGUIDE applies here. The subjects are not described as a group, failing WP:LISTN. Also, sources are nonexistent. Those arguing for a keep claiming how useful it is, shall be advised to refer to WP:USEFUL. SpacedFarmer ( talk) 08:59, 9 April 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Not eligible for Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk! 08:21, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
The result was delete. Liz Read! Talk! 01:53, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
WP:NOTTVGUIDE applies here. The subjects are not described as a group, failing WP:LISTN. Also, sources are nonexistent. Those arguing for a keep claiming how useful it is, shall be advised to refer to WP:USEFUL. SpacedFarmer ( talk) 08:58, 9 April 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Not eligible for Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk! 08:20, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗ plicit 03:43, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
Although he was memorable for his collaborations with John Singleton, none of his roles are significant enough per WP:NACTOR. The Film Creator ( talk) 13:56, 9 April 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk! 04:17, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗ plicit 03:44, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
Subject does not meet the GNG. Mvcg66b3r ( talk) 13:39, 9 April 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk! 04:17, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗ plicit 03:42, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
Doesn't seem to meet WP:MUSICIAN or WP:ACTOR. zoglophie •talk• 10:09, 9 April 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk! 04:16, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
The result was delete. ✗ plicit 03:41, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
Article fails WP:GNG. Simione001 ( talk) 03:54, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
The result was delete. ✗ plicit 03:41, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
Article fails WP:GNG. Simione001 ( talk) 03:52, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
The result was delete. ✗ plicit 03:40, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
This popped up while I was trying to verify a different place, and one look at the topos shows that it is a creek crossing, not a settlement. Mangoe ( talk) 03:32, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
The result was redirect to List of programs broadcast by People's Television Network#Previously aired programs. Liz Read! Talk! 04:31, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
Unreferenced since 2019. No good references obtained in GSearch, GBooks, GNews and GNews Archives. Suggest List of programs broadcast by People's Television Network as plausible WP:ATD -- Lenticel ( talk) 03:32, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk! 03:15, 9 April 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk! 03:15, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
The result was delete. Liz Read! Talk! 01:18, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
The source within the entry is the football player database, I couldn't find other sources, and this football player actually only kicked less than 4 years. 日期20220626 ( talk) 01:05, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
The result was delete. The consensus is to Delete this article. To the editors working on this article, being a Microsoft employee, even a senior employee, doesn't in itself establish notability by Wikipedia standards. Liz Read! Talk! 00:35, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
The sources here are primary and there is only sources about quotes online. I think this is not enough to scratch notability yet. Cleo Cooper ( talk) 00:35, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
The result was speedy keep. theleekycauldron ( talk • she/her) 04:57, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
Again, I don't see how a bunch of bored academics+A bunch of very bored journalists with nothing better to write about+a bunch of very bored people with nothing better to talk about=The sex lives and proclivities of a bunch of imaginary people. Americanfreedom ( talk) 04:38, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
The result was delete. Liz Read! Talk! 22:45, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
Could not find anything resembling WP:SIGCOV. Seems to fail WP:GNG. Robby.is.on ( talk) 23:00, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
The result was redirect to History of Bellingham, Washington. If this is the correct Redirect target article, feel free to change it. There were several mentioned in this discussion. Liz Read! Talk! 22:47, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
Merge with History of Bellingham, Washington. Article is about a single settlement that existed for roughly ten years after the merger of Whatcom and Sehome, and prior to its merger into Bellingham. Supported by one source, which itself doesn't support most of the text. PersusjCP ( talk) 22:57, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
The result was Draftify. I'm closing this discussion as Draftify. As far as I can tell, this just means that it needs to be submitted for an AFC review before returning to main space. I just hope it gets improved. Feel free to have a rename discussion on the draft talk page. Liz Read! Talk! 22:58, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
Does not meet
WP:NPOV; relies heavily on direct quotes. '''[[
User:CanonNi]]'''
(
talk|
contribs) 13:34, 9 April 2024 (UTC)
'''[[
User:CanonNi]]'''
(
talk|
contribs) 13:34, 9 April 2024 (UTC):I have improved the references now.
Bengali editor (
talk) 13:56, 9 April 2024 (UTC) Sock, see
Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Lazy-restless
::See the recent sourcing, it is better sourced now.
Bengali editor (
talk) 14:41, 9 April 2024 (UTC)
'''[[
User:CanonNi]]'''
(
talk|
contribs) 14:42, 9 April 2024 (UTC)::::No, they mostly contains secondary sources.
Bengali editor (
talk) 14:52, 9 April 2024 (UTC)
Umar bin Khattab said, Learn Arabic language. That is part of your deen. — Ibn Taymiyyah said, Arabic language is the symbol of Islam and its people (Muslims). — He further said, Allah revealed the Qur'an in Arabic andd instructed the beloved Prophet (PBUH) to preach the Qur'an-Sunnah in Arabic. The first followers of the religion were Arabic speaking. Therefore, there is no substitute for mastering this language for deep knowledge of religion. Practicing Arabic is part of religion and a symbol of respect for religion.How is this not a direct quotation?
'''[[
User:CanonNi]]'''
(
talk|
contribs) 14:56, 9 April 2024 (UTC)::::For quotations, secondary sources have been used from books and newspapers.
Bengali editor (
talk) 14:59, 9 April 2024 (UTC)
::Check out last changes and the section opinion of non-muslim scholars, I have added a lot of entries from established reliable sources.
Bengali editor (
talk) 23:52, 9 April 2024 (UTC)
'''[[
User:CanonNi]]'''
(
talk|
contribs) 23:54, 9 April 2024 (UTC)
'''[[
User:CanonNi]]'''
(
talk|
contribs) 01:38, 10 April 2024 (UTC)
'''[[
User:CanonNi]]'''
(
talk|
contribs) 01:48, 10 April 2024 (UTC)'''[[
User:CanonNi]]'''
(
talk|
contribs) 02:49, 10 April 2024 (UTC)
:::::::::Nope. There are many non muslim scholars of Islam, means they are scholars of Islam but doesn't believe in it.
List of non-Muslim authors on Islam,
Category:Non-Islamic Islam studies literature,
Category:Christian scholars of Islam,
Category:Jewish scholars of Islam,
Category:Muslim scholars of Islam,
Category:Non-Muslim scholars of Islam and
Category:Scholars of Islam by religion.
Bengali editor (
talk) 03:46, 10 April 2024 (UTC)
*Keep Classical Quranic Arabic in Quran and Hadith literature is considered the most divine miraculous language in Islam as muslim scholars say the linguistic divine secret knowledges of original Arabic Quran can never be completely transformed into translation in any other form of languages. Moreover, using original arabic dictations in prayers (
salat) and prophetic rituals such as
Hajj is obligatory also. The traditions of Muhammad including the quotes and deeds of Muhammad are also preserved much carefully in original Arabic (
Ilm al-Rijal) without any minimal distortion.
Bengali editor (
talk) 17:41, 13 April 2024 (UTC) Sock, see
Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Lazy-restless.
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Please do not move this article until after the AFD is closed. If the decision is that the article will be Kept, then a article page move can be considered.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk! 22:43, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz Read! Talk! 00:18, 19 April 2024 (UTC)
The article states that Gary Smith is a congressional candidate. It also mentions his conviction for stalking. Congressional candidates are neither notable or not notable under WP:POLITICIAN. However, nothing is so distinct about his candidacy that he himself warrants an article. It is otherwise run of the mill coverage of candidacies that do not rise to the level of candidates like Christine O'Donnell, Lar Daly or Pro-Life (born Marvin Thomas Richardson). The other is his conviction. Notability as it relates to crime and criminals states that "a person who is known only in connection with a criminal event or trial should not normally be the subject of a separate Wikipedia article if there is an existing article that could incorporate the available encyclopedic material relating to that person." The information on his conviction can be merged into the article about the 2012 election. Mpen320 ( talk) 19:58, 9 April 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk! 22:31, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
The result was delete. ✗ plicit 03:45, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
Fails WP:NBLP and WP:GNG. The notability of this individual is not established independently of his company, the Hollywood Critics Association. All the coverage he has received is in context of a series of related controversies involving his company. In fact, about 70% of the content on this page is copied from the company's Wikipedia page. Notability is not inherited, please see WP:INVALIDBIO, WP:BIO1E and WP:PSEUDO. Beyond these controversies, there is very little biographical information and that is cited to low-quality sources such as Muck Rack, alumni sites, and the 'about' page of a primary source. Teemu.cod ( talk) 22:35, 9 April 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Already PROD'd for deletion, supposedly by the article subject, so not eligible for Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk! 22:23, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
The result was no consensus. This is not a Keep closure or a Delete closure. Do to a lack of participation, I see no consensus here. If the nominator wants to hold a follow-up AFD, please wait an appropriate period of time. Coming back too soon to AFD will likely result in a similar closure to this one. If this AFD can only garner a handful of participants, a new AFD happening too soon will likely have even fewer participants. Liz Read! Talk! 23:33, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
He's a TV host but he fails to meet relevant WP:JOURNALIST as well WP:GNG — Saqib ( talk | contribs) 20:53, 29 March 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk! 23:11, 5 April 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Already PROD'd, not eligible for Soft Deletion. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk! 22:49, 9 April 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist. Can we get some more participation here?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk! 22:14, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
I'm just curious why IP addresses from outside Pakistan are involved in voting deletions here. --— Saqib ( talk | contribs) 08:26, 20 April 2024 (UTC)
The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz Read! Talk! 23:05, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
I am unable to find enough coverage of the subject, a South African rugby union player, to meet WP:GNG or WP:SPORTCRIT. JTtheOG ( talk) 21:22, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz Read! Talk! 23:05, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
I am unable to find enough coverage of the subject, a South African rugby union player, to meet WP:GNG or WP:SPORTCRIT. JTtheOG ( talk) 21:19, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
The result was keep. Liz Read! Talk! 23:06, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
Reviewed during NPP. A combination of wp:Not for a stats-only article (and inherently subject) combined with no evidence of wp:notability under GNG or SNG. There have been in-depth discussions on articles of this type which led to deletion. North8000 ( talk) 20:41, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz Read! Talk! 23:07, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
There seems to be nothing that proves this is notable. The internet verifies it exists, but that's about all. Drmies ( talk) 20:31, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
The result was speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn. ( non-admin closure) JTtheOG ( talk) 20:58, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
I am unable to find sufficient in-depth coverage of the subject, a South African rugby league player, to meet WP:GNG or WP:SPORTCRIT, or much coverage at all past trivial mentions. JTtheOG ( talk) 19:49, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
I am also nominating the following related pages because they are all South African rugby league players who played at the same qualifying tournament and were created by the same user under now-deprecated WP:SNGs, with little to no chance of ever receiving WP:SIGCOV:
The result was delete. Liz Read! Talk! 23:08, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
No notability in the article beyond a dubious 'guitar picking' statement and no significant coverage to be found on the web. InDimensional ( talk) 19:09, 9 April 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Article has been through PROD. Ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Shadow311 (
talk) 19:13, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
The result was delete. Liz Read! Talk! 23:09, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
Nothing appears to have changed since the last AfD a month ago. WP:NOTGUIDE applies. signed, Rosguill talk 18:43, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
Not sure on this - Is this up for deletion because the article is in bad shape, or that it shouldn't be here regardless? We have List of Wimbledon broadcasters and List of Australian Open broadcasters articles that appear to be sourced much better and are laid out in a satisfactory style. The flags for countries would certainly have to go as against MOS. If this was done in a Wimbledon like style would there be objections? Fyunck(click) ( talk) 09:07, 17 April 2024 (UTC)
Delete, as per my previous nomination. This was soft deleted and should remain deleted. No merit for keeping this. Again, WP:NOTTVGUIDE applies here. The subjects are not described as a group, failing WP:LISTN. Also, all but one are unsourced - has anything improved since then? No. SpacedFarmer ( talk) 17:56, 17 April 2024 (UTC)
The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz Read! Talk! 00:20, 19 April 2024 (UTC)
A missionary in Africa but no evidence of any notability. Many of the sources are family tree/ genealogy sources which attest to facts but not notabiity. He gets a mention in source 4 as a young man with an eye to an attractive daughter of a missionary family but nothing here speaks of notability and the source is highly affiliated. Fails WP:GNG Velella Velella Talk 18:42, 9 April 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Hey man im josh (
talk) 18:43, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Cavarrone 18:12, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
Promotional/UPE. Engineer did engineering things. UtherSRG (talk) 18:34, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
The person has been an elected member of a highly selective and prestigious scholarly society or association (e.g., a National Academy of Sciences or the Royal Society) or a fellow of a major scholarly society which reserves fellow status as a highly selective honor (e.g., Fellow of the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers or Honorary Fellow of the Institute of Physics).StarryGrandma ( talk) 05:26, 18 April 2024 (UTC)
The result was merge to Cup. Liz Read! Talk! 23:10, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
Contested PROD. No refs on the page for many years and appears to be a WP:DICDEF with little way to expand or cite properly. There are related ideas such as Beaker (laboratory equipment) and Bell Beaker culture but I'm not seeing the RS for this term. JMWt ( talk) 18:05, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz Read! Talk! 23:11, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
Micro-denomination of six churches. All sources in article are primary sources direct to the subject's own webpage. WP:BEFORE search is tricky because of the common name (similarly named churches in Cuba, Africa, etc.) but turns up nothing to validate notability under WP:NORG Dclemens1971 ( talk) 17:50, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
The result was delete. Liz Read! Talk! 23:11, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
Nominating following contested PROD. Micro-denomination of (perhaps) six congregations; PROD contestor said poor sourcing is not a reason to delete, but no existing sources are valid for establishing notability, and WP:BEFORE searches provide no additional evidence of notability under WP:NORG.
Review of existing sources:
I cannot identify any other independent, secondary, reliable sources that verify the notability of this denomination. Dclemens1971 ( talk) 17:26, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
The result was keep without prejudice against early renomination, if source analysis warrants it. Owen× ☎ 13:45, 24 April 2024 (UTC)
Doesn't meet GNG or WP:NMMA, as refs are either his personal page or sports results Nswix ( talk) 14:55, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Shadow311 (
talk) 15:59, 9 April 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Shadow311 (
talk) 17:01, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
References
The result was keep. with expansion of article. Liz Read! Talk! 00:24, 19 April 2024 (UTC)
Completely unsoured article that doesn't meet the WP:GNG. Let'srun ( talk) 16:31, 9 April 2024 (UTC)
Often, understanding is best achieved by presenting the topic on a dedicated standalone page, but it is not required that we do so; at times it is better to cover a notable topic as part of a larger page about a broader topic, with more context (and doing so in no way disparages the importance of the topic). Editorial judgment goes into each decision about whether or not to create a separate page, but the decision should always be based upon specific considerations about how to make the topic understandable.
Notability requires only the existence of suitable independent, reliable sources, not their immediate presence or citation in an article. Editors evaluating notability should consider ... [the] existence of notability-indicating sources that are not currently named in the article.NOPAGE is about whether it is best to cover a subject at another topic because sufficient content about the subject for a standalone cannot be added; it is not meant to get rid of articles solely because they are short. Although, if an expansion is all it takes for you to change your !vote, I can almost certainly do that. Is that what you'd like me to do? BeanieFan11 ( talk) 20:18, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
because sufficient content about the subject for a standalone cannot be added: I think it applies even when such content can be added. Nor do I have any issue with WP:NEXIST: topics are notable; articles aren't. The sources you've brought forward suggest that the notability hurdle is likely to be met, and a redirect isn't meant to preclude the article's creation (cf. Category:Redirects with possibilities). While I haven't looked at the sources, my !vote isn't about notability; rather, it's about how Wikipedia should organise its current encyclopedic coverage of the topic. Indeed, as WP:NOPAGE says:
at times it is better to cover a notable topic as part of a larger page about a broader topic(my emphasis).
if an expansion is all it takes for you to change your !vote, I can almost certainly do that→ Yep, this is a fairly accurate summary of my position: redirect until it's sourced enough to show it meets GNG and goes beyond the ABL article. So, please, BeanieFan11, go for it, but only if this is genuinely interesting to you and how you wish to spend your wikiediting time before this AfD closes. As far as I'm concerned, there's no deadline, which is why this can close as Redirect and the article can be recreated from the page history whenever an editor is sufficiently interested to complete this task. IgnatiusofLondon (he/him • ☎️) 20:44, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
I don't think it is sane to believe that, if this is redirected, anyone will ever turn this into something. There just isn't the interest.→ Yes, I agree. But that also means you shouldn't feel burdened as
the only hope this article has for existence. Nobody will miss this article if it is redirected: crucially, none of its content will be lost, because the ABL article already contains it; and the page history is always there anyway. You shouldn't feel any more obligated to expand it as a standalone article than as a redirect. IgnatiusofLondon (he/him • ☎️) 21:31, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
Nobody will miss this article– Actually, 318 people a year will miss it. I also am unaware of anyone outside of Wikipedia editors themselves who know how to use the page history function in that manner. I should feel much more obligated to expand it now as otherwise, without my intervention, there is no hope of the full story ever being developed here, because no one ever will if its a redirect, as you have agreed yourself. But I'm in the process of expanding it anyways so... BeanieFan11 ( talk) 21:37, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Shadow311 (
talk) 16:52, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
consider merge or redirect to American Basketball League (1925–1955) as preferred WP:ATD. Not quite a trouting for Let'srun, but I think that was a wise recommendation not to bring the article to AfD. IgnatiusofLondon (he/him • ☎️) 15:22, 17 April 2024 (UTC)
The result was delete. Liz Read! Talk! 01:41, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
Such a wide concept, not sure its point is clear in this unreferenced article. Boleyn ( talk) 16:23, 9 April 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Shadow311 (
talk) 16:51, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
The result was delete. Owen× ☎ 07:51, 24 April 2024 (UTC)
No useful secondary sources. Very little content. Per WP:PRIMARY: "Do not base an entire article on primary sources, and be cautious about basing large passages on them." Amounts to a Pseudo-biography: "An article under the title of a person's name should substantially be a full and balanced biography of that person's public life" AusLondonder ( talk) 16:50, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
It has at no stage been considered to confer notability. That's simply not true. This was discussed recently at Wikipedia talk:Notability (people).It has been discussed several times on talkpages and a consensus has never been attained one way or the other.
Please stop repeatedly misrepresenting what ANYBIO says.I'm not. I'm restating general consensus at AfD, as you very well know. Please "stop repeatedly misrepresenting" what I say.
Assuming he was awarded a CVO, it must have been between 2004 and 2020, which is when the source that cites the CVO, was last updated.According to Who's Who it was conferred in 2008, as I said above. As I have also said above, I have been unable to find it in the London Gazette, which is surprising if it was conferred. You will notice (if you botherered to check) that I have not expressed a "keep" opinion on that basis. -- Necrothesp ( talk) 12:56, 22 April 2024 (UTC)
Those AfDs often involve very, very low participation, with the same collection of editors arguing ANYBIO supersedes sourcing requirements.But higher participation than in those other discussions, frankly. And not the same editors every time at all. I could equally say it's the same editors every time arguing against keeping them! -- Necrothesp ( talk) 12:30, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
The result was delete. Hey man im josh ( talk) 16:46, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
Virtually no actual content and been like this for 12 years. No credible claim to notability - the chairman of a regional branch of a business unit of a larger company. No secondary sources. AusLondonder ( talk) 16:07, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Desertarun ( talk) 18:56, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
Sources are largely routine transactional coverage, not in-depth and independent. No evidence of notability. Previously deleted and salted at PROS * Pppery * it has begun... 16:07, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
There has been considerable discussion over time whether publicly traded corporations, or at least publicly traded corporations listed on major stock exchanges such as the NYSE and other comparable international stock exchanges, are inherently notable. Consensus has been that notability is not automatic in this (or any other) case. However, sufficient independent sources almost always exist for such companies, so that notability can be established using the primary criterion discussed above. Examples of such sources include independent press coverage and analyst reports.
Analyst reports
https://www.marketbeat.com/stocks/NYSE/PRO/price-target/
Internet Archive contains a list of analyst reports available under a paywall:
Date | Brokerage | Analyst Name | Action | Rating | Price Target | Upside/Downside on Report Date | Details |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
3/4/2024 | Needham & Company LLC | Reiterated Rating | Buy ➝ Buy | $40.00 | +11.23% | View Report Details | |
1/12/2024 | KeyCorp | Upgrade | Sector Weight ➝ Overweight | $43.00 | +24.46% | View Report Details | |
12/4/2023 | Robert W. Baird | Boost Target | Outperform ➝ Outperform | $40.00 ➝ $47.00 | +20.20% | View Report Details | |
5/24/2023 | Craig Hallum | Boost Target | $32.00 ➝ $37.00 | +32.47% | View Report Details | ||
5/3/2023 | Stifel Nicolaus | Lower Target | $36.00 ➝ $34.00 | +28.54% | View Report Details | ||
4/19/2023 | Oppenheimer | Initiated Coverage | Outperform | $37.00 | +36.94% | View Report Details | |
3/4/2022 | Morgan Stanley | Lower Target | Equal Weight | $35.00 ➝ $33.00 | +5.74% | View Report Details | |
12/14/2021 | JPMorgan Chase & Co. | Upgrade | Underweight ➝ Neutral | $37.00 | +10.02% | View Report Details | |
12/17/2020 | Northland Securities | Boost Target | Outperform | $56.00 ➝ $61.00 | +25.49% | View Report Details | |
10/30/2020 | Royal Bank of Canada | Downgrade | Outperform ➝ Sector Perform | $33.00 | +5.06% | View Report Details | |
2/12/2020 | Bank of America | John King | Reiterated Rating | Buy | $80.00 | +53.73% | View Report Details |
7/26/2019 | Nomura Securities | Boost Target | Buy | $77.00 ➝ $79.00 | +7.98% | View Report Details | |
5/23/2019 | DA Davidson | Boost Target | Neutral | $50.00 | -6.94% | View Report Details | |
5/10/2019 | JMP Securities | Reiterated Rating | Mkt Perform ➝ Market Perform | View Report Details | |||
6/29/2017 | Pacific Crest | Boost Target | Overweight | $30.00 ➝ $35.00 | +29.06% | View Report Details | |
5/3/2017 | Deutsche Bank Aktiengesellschaft | Boost Target | Buy | $35.00 | +37.42% | View Report Details | |
2/13/2017 | William Blair | Reiterated Rating | Outperform | View Report Details | |||
8/25/2015 | TD Securities | Lower Target | Speculative Buy | C$0.35 ➝ C$0.30 | View Report Details | ||
4/8/2015 | Dundee Securities | Initiated Coverage | Buy | View Report Details | |||
2/28/2014 | Jefferies Financial Group | Downgrade | Buy ➝ Hold | $47.00 ➝ $37.00 | -9.89% | View Report Details |
The result was redirect to Rust shooting incident. (non-admin closure) The Herald (Benison) ( talk) 18:53, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
Textbook WP:BLP1E; subject does not have any notability beyond the Rust shooting incident, which is where this target was originally redirecting to. OhNoitsJamie Talk 16:02, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
The result was delete. Hey man im josh ( talk) 17:00, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
Small defunct school. Zero secondary sources. Fails WP:GNG. AusLondonder ( talk) 15:39, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
The result was delete. Hey man im josh ( talk) 16:54, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
A wholly unsourced, out of date list of mostly non-notable trustees. Fails WP:NLIST and WP:NOTDIRECTORY. AusLondonder ( talk) 15:26, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
The result was delete. Liz Read! Talk! 01:48, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
another influencer with no substantial coverage from any reliable source FuzzyMagma ( talk) 14:43, 9 April 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Already been through PROD. Not eligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Shadow311 (
talk) 14:53, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
The result was keep. Editors can pursue a merge on talk if they wish. (non-admin closure) Desertarun ( talk) 18:52, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
The incident is not notable enough for inclusion in Wikipedia. Per WP:AIRCRASH, in general, military aircraft incidents are not notable. The accident didn't result in a significant change in the operation of the aircraft or the operation of the Russian Air Force. Thus, the incident failed WP:GNG. Thank you. ✠ SunDawn ✠ (contact) 13:48, 25 March 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
The Herald (Benison) (
talk) 21:58, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Analysis of available reference material would be very helpful.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Seraphimblade
Talk to me 02:36, 9 April 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Shadow311 (
talk) 14:47, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
The result was no consensus. It looks like much of the objection to the existence of the page has to do with its name. A better title can be discussed on the article's Talk page. Owen× ☎ 13:30, 24 April 2024 (UTC)
Reviewed during NPP. This article is about a triple murder rather than about the person who did them. Doesn't meet wp:notability requirements and guidance for events. Nor guidance provided by wp:Not news. North8000 ( talk) 20:01, 25 March 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk! 23:14, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I'd like to hear some more opinions, especially on the quality of sources which can determine notability.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk! 22:51, 8 April 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Shadow311 (
talk) 14:44, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
The result was keep. Editors can pursue a merge on the talk page if they wish. (non-admin closure) Desertarun ( talk) 18:49, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
No refs on the page for many years. Nothing much found to show that the story has notability against the inclusion criteria. As ATD we could redirect to William Hope Hodgson but I'm not convinced this is necessary JMWt ( talk) 09:40, 9 April 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: While there is agreement that this should not be deleted, it is still unclear if the content should remain as a stand-alone article or merged/redirected to
List of stories by William Hope Hodgson.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
✗
plicit 11:31, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Cavarrone 18:09, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
Does not fulfill the requirements for WP:Notability, not enough indepedent sigcov could be found either in the article or through own search. WP:NACADEMICS is not met either. FortunateSons ( talk) 10:14, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
The result was delete. RL0919 ( talk) 09:56, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
The only claim to notability is being an unelected candidate in a previous Australian federal election. Fails WP:NPOLITICIAN and WP:GNG. GMH Melbourne ( talk) 08:25, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
The result was delete. Liz Read! Talk! 01:52, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
WP:NOTTVGUIDE applies here. The subjects are not described as a group, failing WP:LISTN. Also, sources are primary sources, nothing but news announcements and none of those assert notability. Those arguing for a keep claiming how useful it is, shall be advised to refer to WP:USEFUL. SpacedFarmer ( talk) 09:03, 9 April 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Not eligible for Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk! 08:21, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
The result was delete. Liz Read! Talk! 01:53, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
WP:NOTTVGUIDE applies here. The subjects are not described as a group, failing WP:LISTN. Also, sources are nonexistent. Those arguing for a keep claiming how useful it is, shall be advised to refer to WP:USEFUL. SpacedFarmer ( talk) 08:59, 9 April 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Not eligible for Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk! 08:21, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
The result was delete. Liz Read! Talk! 01:53, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
WP:NOTTVGUIDE applies here. The subjects are not described as a group, failing WP:LISTN. Also, sources are nonexistent. Those arguing for a keep claiming how useful it is, shall be advised to refer to WP:USEFUL. SpacedFarmer ( talk) 08:58, 9 April 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Not eligible for Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk! 08:20, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗ plicit 03:43, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
Although he was memorable for his collaborations with John Singleton, none of his roles are significant enough per WP:NACTOR. The Film Creator ( talk) 13:56, 9 April 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk! 04:17, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗ plicit 03:44, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
Subject does not meet the GNG. Mvcg66b3r ( talk) 13:39, 9 April 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk! 04:17, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗ plicit 03:42, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
Doesn't seem to meet WP:MUSICIAN or WP:ACTOR. zoglophie •talk• 10:09, 9 April 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk! 04:16, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
The result was delete. ✗ plicit 03:41, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
Article fails WP:GNG. Simione001 ( talk) 03:54, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
The result was delete. ✗ plicit 03:41, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
Article fails WP:GNG. Simione001 ( talk) 03:52, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
The result was delete. ✗ plicit 03:40, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
This popped up while I was trying to verify a different place, and one look at the topos shows that it is a creek crossing, not a settlement. Mangoe ( talk) 03:32, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
The result was redirect to List of programs broadcast by People's Television Network#Previously aired programs. Liz Read! Talk! 04:31, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
Unreferenced since 2019. No good references obtained in GSearch, GBooks, GNews and GNews Archives. Suggest List of programs broadcast by People's Television Network as plausible WP:ATD -- Lenticel ( talk) 03:32, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk! 03:15, 9 April 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk! 03:15, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
The result was delete. Liz Read! Talk! 01:18, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
The source within the entry is the football player database, I couldn't find other sources, and this football player actually only kicked less than 4 years. 日期20220626 ( talk) 01:05, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
The result was delete. The consensus is to Delete this article. To the editors working on this article, being a Microsoft employee, even a senior employee, doesn't in itself establish notability by Wikipedia standards. Liz Read! Talk! 00:35, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
The sources here are primary and there is only sources about quotes online. I think this is not enough to scratch notability yet. Cleo Cooper ( talk) 00:35, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
The result was speedy keep. theleekycauldron ( talk • she/her) 04:57, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
Again, I don't see how a bunch of bored academics+A bunch of very bored journalists with nothing better to write about+a bunch of very bored people with nothing better to talk about=The sex lives and proclivities of a bunch of imaginary people. Americanfreedom ( talk) 04:38, 16 April 2024 (UTC)